SPEECH 



HON, J. S. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, 



IN FAVOR OF THE 



ADMISSION OF KANSAS 



THE LECOMPTOX CONSTITUTION. 



DELIVERSB 



J^f THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



MARCH 23, 1858. 



■^' 



WASKlN^GTONi 

tfEINTED BY LEMUEL TOWER?, 



SPEECH 

OF 

HOX. J. S. GREEX, OF 3I1SS01UI, 

IS FAVOR OF TllK 

ADMISSION OF KANSAS INTO THE UNION 

UNDER 

THE LECOMPTOi^ CONSTITUTION. 



OELIYEKED IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAKCH 23, 1S5S. 



Mr. Prss-ident-: The Committee ou Tevritories examined the subject that 
>*7as submitted to th-em, having before them the constitution of the State f>f 
Kansas and all tli^ fae-ts connected with its formation. The result of that 
examination has l)eeu reported to the Senate and the country. The major- 
ity of th-e comraittee deemed it proper to select me t'O make that presenta- 
tion to the Seaate. In consequence of that fact, it bow devolves \i\yon me 
to review tlte arguments that have been presented against that report, and 
against the positions of the friends of this measui'e, and to reply to them as 
biiefly as I well can. I need not undertake to magnify the importance of 
this subject. I could not do so. It extends in its effects and consequences 
to the vital interests of the Republic Nothing could strike a mo».e fatal 
Mow at what ought to be the permanent inteiests of all sections of the 
Union, than the i'.nproper decision of tlie siibject now under considerntion. 

The Senator from Michig;au, (Mr. Sihjart,) with a flourish of trampets 
unusual with hini, said Uiat the friends of the Kansas measure had been 
driven from all tlteir positions. With due deference t'O him,, I must be pei- 
niitted to remark that I am not conscious of any friend of tiiis bi^l being 
<]riven fiom its support; or of any position taken in the repor|, of the com- 
mi^.tee being s'-irrecdei-ed or abandoned ; nor am I conscious of any suc- 
cessful answer to any single position taken in that report. If we have been 
driven fioui any one, I would like to have tliat one pointed out. General 
charges, general assertions, and general allegations will not do for the Sen- 
ate of tiie United States. They will not do for a court of justice of the 
iowest grade. They v;ill nut eveUvlo Kpon the stump, or at the hustings. 
We must come to specific facts — to the true questions that have to be 
decided; and not undertake to prejudice the one side or the other by 
making broad, general, uusup|x)rted assertions. 

So it is with the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas.) He says that 
the principlecf the Kansas bill was, that the people should be left perfectly 
free to decide all domestic questions for themselves in their own way; and 
then assumes that such freedom of action has not been accorded to them. 
^Is I have previously remarked, before we can arrive at a safe and just con- 



ciuaion we mast take all material facts and trace tfiem trp in tliefr proper 
connection; and if, in siTcb connection, we cannot agree in the deductions 
or in the conclusions, that variance in opinion will be an honorable differ- 
ence between honorable Senators. For my part, I see no cause and have 
heard no reason to Justify-a sound logician in changing one single position. 
The principles opoa which the report is based remain tmshalcen. Bat one 
single point of the report was called in question by the Senator from llli- 
Dois. What point in it was even controverted by the Senator from Michi- 
gan ? What principle enunciated in it has been called in qi^estion by any 
Senator on the opposite side ? 

It is true, exception was taken \y ^he honorable Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Collameb) to the language. He said there were harsh expressions in 
it ; that the Opposition party in Kansas were characterized as " rebels," as 
" contnmacioua ;" as standing in a position of hostility to the Government. 
It does so characterize them ; and, if the facts presented in that report 
will not justify the accusations, it is a doty to take them back. Each sin- 
gle charge, with regard to the character of the Opposition in Kansas, is 
sustained by official evidence presented in the repoit^ from which there is,, 
and can be, no escape. If the honorable Senator supposes it unparliament- 
ary or indecorous to make specific charges, upon evidence presented, in a 
State paper, to remain npon the parliamentary records of the country, I 
remark that the speech of his colleagae from the same State of Vermont, 
(Mr, Foot,) which also becomes a part of the parliamentary history of this 
country, has more of abBse^ more of denunciation, more of harsh epithet, 
than can be found in any speech^ or in any paper, presented on the subject 
from this side of the Chamber, Wiih what propriety, therefore, shall one 
representative of a State complain of the expressions of opponents, whilst 
tolerating, in his colleague, the use of language' so extraordinarily harsh aa 
to have taken the whole Senate by surprise ? 

I say, farther, that that was the only exception taken by the honorable 
Senator to the report. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr, Ciark) 
desired an explanation in regard to one expression in it ; which explanatioii 
was at once given, and is borne out by the context in the report, and leaves 
no possible chance for misconstruction. With what justice, therefore, shaB 
we be taunted with having been driven to the wall ; with having beea 
driven from our position ; with having been vanquished in all the debate 
and in all the investigation had before the Senate and the country ? Sucb 
is not the case, as I understand it. 

But the Senator from Michigan says, that althortgh it is true that the 
convention adopted this constitution, yet that adoption is not evidence that 
it embodies the will of the people of Kansas. There seems to be a sort of 
oneness in the moulding of expressions by the Opposition — " embodying the 
will of the people!" — as if mutually adopted by agreement among the 
Opposition, I will make no issue upon that point. There is not a Sena- 
tor, Ror a member of the House, nor a citizen of the Union, but what says 
that all constitutions oupkt to embody the wiil of the majority. How that 
fact is 10 be ascertained — what legal steps can be pursvied for its ascertain- 
ment, consistent with order, peace, ai>d constitutional government — h 
another question ; but that we ougl)t to take the proper steps, Ihe legal 
steps, to ascertain the will of the people, is a conceded fact. It is imagined 
by some, and Ibelieve by the Senator from Michigan, that the best mode 
of ascertainiBg the will of the people is by a submission to a vote of the 



people; and lie refenod to the vote on the 4th of January as affording the 
clearest and most conclusive evidence that the people of that Territory dis- 
approved the constitution. He also brought, as evidence of that assertion, 
what he says is a direct vote of the people; and he also referred to a mass 
meetincc, held at Leavenworth, consisting of delegates claiming to represent, 
by voluntary action, a vast raajurity (as he says) of the people of the Ter- 
ritory. How, I ask, can he undertake to give the sense of the people from 
the mere action of a meeting at Leavenwoithi Why rely on a single 
meeting to ascertain public opinion, if we are to reject as unreliable the 
opinion of a legal convention, legally elected at a public election, and thus 
representing the opinions of the people in a legal sense? Those who could 
get up a meeting, without law, without system, without order, tlu'ough 
their delegates to a self-constituted assembly at Leavenworth, can be relied 
upon to represent the people and speak their will, according to his argu- 
ment; but when the legally chosen, the legally appointed delegates, elected 
by the people at the ballot-box, speak, it is not to be received as evidence 
of the will of the )>eopIe ! The irregular and the irresponsible, this body is 
told, can be relied upon ; the regular, legal, and the responsible, should be 
rejected as unreliable ! Are the friends of the constitution to be vanquished 
by reasoning and by facts like these? 

Mr. Piesident, as I piopose to notice the several objections urged by the 
Senator from Illinois, and others, my train of remark will be rather de- 
sultory. The Senator from Illinois takes the position, that, although there 
was a submission of the slave article of the constitution on the 21st of 
December, yet it was an unfair submission. I have, on several occasions, 
corrected Senators in their quotation of the constitution on this subject. 
This is the last time that I shall ever correct them upon it. They all have, 
including the Senator from Illinois, uniformly represented this to have been 
the mode of voting ; that no man could vote for or against slavery on the 
21st of December until he first voted /or the constitution. Such is not the 
fact. There is no such provision in the schedule — none in the constitution. 
There was but one single question submitted. The complaint has been 
often made, by these same Senators, that there was no submission of the 
whole constitution ; yet they now say that it was submitted, and unfairly 
submitted, because each man was compelled to vote for the constitution 
before he could vote upon the other subject, I answered that objection in 
the first remarks I ever submitted to the Senate on this subject. I took 
the ground, and it has never yet been successfully answered, that there was 
but one question submitted by the convention — not for the constitution as 
one question, and slavery or no slavery another question ; but the one single 
question of " slavery or no slavery." It will be observed that the form of 
the ballot which each voter had to make use of was not for the constitution 
and slavery, or /or the constitution and no slavery. No such ballot as that 
was proposed — none whatever. What then ? Why, the question of sla- 
very was submitted. How was slavery to be protected ? How was it to 
be guarantied in the constitution. It was already inserted in the constitu- 
tion. The <iuestion submitted, then, was, shall it remain there^ or not? 
That was the vital question which was submitted to the people to decide. 
The voter was not called on to vote/or the constitution with slavery, or for 
the constitution with no slavery; but, shall the protection of slavery be, or 
shall it not be, in the constitution f 

Thus, as I heretofore exemplitio<l, when the constitution of the State of 



6 

Louisiana was adopted, each voter voting was required to malce use of a 
ballot, thus; " Coustitution accepted," or "Coastitution rejected." There 
would have been just as much plausibility for the Senator from Illinois to 
complain of the action of the convention of the State of Louisiana, alleg- 
ing that each voter should be compelled to vote first for the constitution 
and then its acceptance, or for the constitution and its rejection, as to un- 
dertake to build up an argument that under this schedule the voter is com- 
pelled to vote for the constitution and then slavery, or for the constitution 
and then against slavery. They are presented in identically the same man- 
ner. The whole scope of this section of the schedule shows that but one 
single question was submitted for decision. All other questions were set- 
tled by the convention. It is said the people of Kansas complained that 
no other question was submitted. It is said that the people of the country 
complain because no other question was submitted. I understood the Sen- 
ator from Illinois, in the speech he made here in the Senate before the arri- 
val of the constitution from Kansas, to predicate his objections upon the 
non-submission of the constitution. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a quc-stiou ? 

Mr, Green. Certainly. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE. I would inquire of the honorable Senator whether the 
schedule does not require of the man ottering to vote, not only to vote for 
the constitution 

Mr. Green. It requires no such thing. 

Mr; DooLiTTLE. Does it not go beyond that, and require liiin to take 
an oath to support it ? 

Mr. Green. Of course, if adopted. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE. Does it not only require liim to vote for the constitu- 
tion with slavery, or the constitution with no slavery, but to take an oath 
to support it before he can vote at all ? 

Mr. Green. I will answer the Senator. First, I see the remains of that 
old error still clinging to the mind of the Senator. He asks me the ques- 
tion, with the schedule before him, whether it did not require a voter to 
vote for the constitution with or without slavery ? There is no such word 
in it. Let the Senator look at it. It is now in his hand. Second, with 
regard to the oath to be taken : if challenged, the voter was requiied to 
take an oath to support the constitution if it become the supreme law of 
the land, as all good citizens are. There would have been a peculiar pro- 
priety of the people of Kansas making such a requisition, as there had 
been a proclamation by the Opposition that they would never submit to 
law and order. Those who stand in open rebellion to the government, 
ought to be subject to some honorable and fair test before they are permit- 
ted to participate in shaping the fundamental law. 

As I do not wish to be drawn off from the traiu of remarks I contem- 
plate making, I will return to the point at which I was interrupted. The 
Senator from Illinois made the remaik, in his first speech on this subject, that 
the President of the United States did not understand the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, he being at that time our distinguished representative at Loudon; and 
he excused the ignorance of the President on the ground of his absence from 
the United States. The President's fundamental error, to wliich he then 
called attention, consisted alone in this ; the President said that the Kansas- 



Nebraska act did not require the constitution, wlien formed, to bo submit- 
ted to the vote of tlie whole people. This was renjanh^d by the Senator as 
the fundamental error. He, the autlior of the bill — he, the advocate of 
the bill — he, the defender of the bill before the country, ought to know 
more about it than the President, who was then absent from the country, 
and who, perhaps, had not read all that had taken place on the subject. 
Sir, I have a right to believe that the President of the United States has, 
at least, read the report of the honorable Senator, made at the time he in- 
troduceil the Kansas-Nebraska hill; and if he took his impressions from 
that report, if they are false impressions, the responsibility falls upon the 
report, and not upon the President. To show what justification lie had in 
liis belief upon the subject, I will read a few words. 

Here is the report by Mr. Douglas to accompany the bill (S. No. 22) 
made January 5, 1854. He goes on and gives a history of the compromise 
measures of 1850 — a very clear, forcible illustration of the principles in- 
tended to be thereby established, in the same strain that he did last night 
with so muclj ability, and whi(;h gratified me so much to hear. The object 
then was to organize tlie Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The object 
of the bill was to apply the same principles settled in the compromise mea- 
sures of 1850 to the Kansas-Nebraska bill organizing these Territories in 
1854. He reasons out the subject witli great force and with great beauty, 
and arrives at the following conclusions: 

" From tliese provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm 
anJ rest upon the following propositions: 'The substitute for the bill which your 
Committee have preparctl, and wliich is commended to the favorable action of the 
Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation 
in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850.'" 

What are those principles ? 

"First That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and the new 
States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing 
therein." 

That would seem to sustain the view which the Senator from Illinois 
pressed, when he said that the President was out of the United States, and 
he therefore excused him for not understanding what the principles of that 
bill were. But, sir, I have not -read all of that first principle. It says what 
I Jiave read, and then goes on to say : 

" Are to be left to the decision of the people residing tlierein, by their appropriate 
representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose." 

This is the report of the Senator from Illinois, made when the Kansas 
bill was presented. At that time he said the decision of the slavery ques- 
tion was to be left to the peo{)le, to be exercised — how ? By their appro- 
priate representatives in convention assembled. Because the President did 
not complain of the action of the people of Kansas in not submitting the 
constitution to a vote of the people, but followed out the principle which 
the Senator had presented as the leading idea in the Kansas-Nebra.-5ka act, 
that it was to be decided by their representatives, he cortiplains of the 
President, and of the action (if the people of Kansas. I have ever held, 
and yet bold, that it was for the ]>eople, acting through their convention, 
either to submit or not to sul>mit the constitution ; that the Congress of 
the United States has no constitutional light t.^ stop and demand of them 
to submit it; that, if such demand shoidil be made, it would be a violation 
of duty, a violation of constitutional right, and that we who did it would 



be setting an example never set by our predecessors in office, and, I trust, 
never will be set by those who are to come after us. 

It is said, however, with a great deal of ingenuity, by the Senator from 
Vermont, that it is true the people, by convention, can act ; but, in order 
to make it binding and conclusive action, they must have legal authority 
to act; that the action of the people of Kansas, not being predicated upon 
an enabling ait, is mere voluntary action, and not, therefore, legal action — 
not binding u}>on those who do not choose to act. The Senator from Illi- 
nois shadows forth about the same idea in his first speech. It is this : 

" So far as the act of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas calling this convention 
was concerned, I have always been under the impression that it was fair and just in 
its provisions. I have .always thought the people should have gone together en 
masse and voted for delegates, so that the voice expressed by the convention would 
have been the unquestioned voice of the people of Kansas. I have always thoiight 
that those who staid away from that election stood in their own wrong, and should 
have gone and voted, and should have furnished their names to be piit on tiie regis- 
tered list, so as to be voters. I have always held that it was their own fault that 
they did not tltus go and vote; but yet, if they chose, they had a right to stay 
away." 

There seems to be in this a little contradiction. If they did wrong when 
they staid away, then it was their duty to have voted ; and hence those 
who did vote did right. He further says : 

"They had a right to say that that convention, although not an unlawful assem- 
blage, is not a legal convention to make a government ; and hence we are under no 
obligation to go and express our opinion about it. They had a right to say, if they 
chose, ' we will stay away until we see the constitution they shall frame, the petition 
they shall send to Congress ; and, when they submit it to us for ratification, we will 
vote for it if we like it, or vote it down if we do not like it.' I say they liad a right 
to do either, tliough I thought, and think 3'et, as good citizens, they ought to l)ave 
gone and voted; but that was their business, and not mine." 

The Seuator from Vermont proclaims the same idea that there was no 
legality attached to it; and drew a distinction, which I think my honorable 
colleague completely answered — that there was a difference between a 
legal proceeding and a proceeding by authority. What he meant by legal 
was, that it was not prohibited by law, and therefore not unlawful. 1 think 
I can adduce a little authority to show that this was a legal pi'oceeding. 
The authority that I propose to present consists, first, iu the report repre- 
sented by the Senator from Illinois in 1856, in which he makes his cele- 
brated argument upon the power of Congress over the Territories. He 
deduces the power that Congress has under the Constitution to legislate for 
the Territory, or over the Territory, from that clause which says : 

" New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 

Without conceding the ccrrectnesa of his source of power, I will proceed 
to show what he thought had been accomplished by the establishment of a 
territorial government. He uses this language- on page 4:. 

"Hence, before the power can be safely exercised, the right of Congress to organ- 
ize Territories, hy instituting temporary governments, must be traced directly t-o 
some provision of the Constitution conferring the autiiorit}' in express terms, or as a 
means necessary and proper to carry into effect some one or more of the powei'S 
which are specifically deleg:ited. Is not the organization of a Territory eminently 
necessary and proper as a means of enabling tlie people thereof to form and mould 
their local and domestic institutions, and establish a State government under the 
authority of the Constitution, preparatory to its admission into the Union." 



9 

His idea, as sTiadowdl forth in this vcpoit, and not only sha(iowed forth, 
but expressed in vor}' exphcit lanojuat^e, is, that the exercise of tlyJ power 
to establish a temporary <i:overnnieiit for a Territory was a means to execute 
another constitutional power; that that other constitutional power was to 
admit a Stati' ; and that the establishment of a territorial government was 
to enable them to ]ire))aro for that admission. Thus, accordiiifj to his idea 
at that lime, it, in the languafje of Governor Walker, is an enabling; act; but 
I o^ire nothing- about that. It was a lefi;al proceedinir, when they proceeded 
to form a State government, whether this is an enabling act or not. It is 
well known that a prior consent of Congress has not been the established 
l>iactice of the Government. It is equally well known that all these terri- 
torial governments are in the law expressly stated to be for the purpose of 
j>reparing tliens for admission into the Union. They are all said to be 
temporary. The express word is employed even in the Kansas act — a 
temporary government for Kansas iu the territorial form. So of Nebraska 
— a temporary government in the territorial form. 

Now, if it be a " teinporar)-" gos'-ernment, if it be to enable them to pre- 
pare for admission into the Union, if it be as a means to enable Congress 
to execute the [)ower to admit a State, as he argues in his report, then it is 
all that an enablinq act could ]x)ssibly be. But whether that be so or not, 
I proceed upon a broad principle of equity, which is this; the uniform 
practice of the Government has been to admit Territori_'S as States; and 
dtizens of any of the old States, North, East, South, or elsewhere, going 
and settling in a new Territory established during the past practice of the 
Government, looking at the past action of Congress, have a right, growing 
out of the common practice, to expect the organization of a State govern- 
ment, when they obtain the requisite strength. The common practice to 
so admit tht;m is an inducement to them to settle there; and not to concede 
to them what has been uniformly conceded to all others, without exception, 
would be a fraud upon the people who settle in the Territory. It would 
be a bre;w_'h of the common law which has grown up. Now, as Congress 
has not been uniform in granting enabling acts, as Congress has heretofore 
said an enabliRg act is not a ne<.-ess:iry jirerequisite, as the pi-actice of the 
Government has been uniformly to admit them as States at the proper 
time, he who settles there has a rif/ht, under that practice, to expect that 
that common-law practice shall be adhered to and carried out in good 
faith — more especially when settling in the Terntory acquired from France 
by the Louisiana treaty, which specially stipulated that it should be done. 
' But, independent of all that, there was a government in Kansas, clothed 
with govi-rnmental power, subject only to the Constitution of tlie United 
States, which contemplated llieir admission into the bosom of the old 
family. That government was a teiritorial government. It has been said 
that it was a usuri>ed government; that it was established by fraud and vio- 
lence; that external power from the State of Missouri went over there and 
forced it upon thetn, all of which I pass by as unworthy of notice. Whether 
true or untrue, it was a government dc facto. It was a government wield- 
ing the power of the territorial authority. It was a government authcrrized, 
under the organic act, to do all that any other government, under that act, 
could have done. California was under a kind of military government, 
ostjibliehed under General Rilej^ and the Senator from Illinois, with great 
ingenuity, and great plausibility, (and I am willing to adopt it for the pur- 
[:>oses of the arguraeut,) in his report predicates the right of tlie State of 



10 

California to admission into the Union on these points : First, tliat there 
•was a government de facto there, and that, acting through this de facto 
government, the people had establshed a State government, and asked ad- 
mission into the Union. Such is the history of the case. He employs this 
language : 

" It also appears, from the proclaniatiun of General Eiley, acting Governor, to the 
people of California, dated June 3, 1849, that the government de facto was consti- 
tuted as follows: ************ 

" On the 3d of April, 1S49 President Taylor appointed Thomas Butler King agent, 
for the purpose of conveyiiig important, instructions to oiir military and naval com- 
manders who were intrusted with the administration of the civil government de facto 
in California." 

Thus predicating his whole argument on the double idea that the people 
had acted, and acted tlnough a government de facto. Had you not a gov- 
ernment de facto, as regular, as legal, as just, in the case of Kansas, as you 
had in California, even if you admit that in its origination frauds were 
committed, force resorted to, and exteina! aid brought to bear? Now, sir, 
here is a governtnenl de facto. They proceeded to call a convention. So 
in Kansas; there wms a government de facto, and they proceeded to call a 
convention. The Senator from Vermont says, however, that it is not a 
legality. Let us see what the Senator from Illinois says upon that subject; 
for I love to answer one of my oponents with the language of another. 
The Senator from Illinois, speaking of the action in California, says: 

"But there is not an irregularity in the case of California which has not occured 
and been Avaived in the admission of some new State into the Union. If the Senator 
will point to me any irregularity in the case of California, 1 will point him to a 
corresponding one in the case of some other State which has been received into the 
Union." » * * * "I hold that the people of California had a right 

to do what they have done ; yea, that they had a moral, political, and legal right to 
do all they have done." — Appendix to Globe, 1850, page 1523. 

So that the action of the people of California, being subordinate to the 
government de facto, was a legal action. The action of the people of Kan- 
sas, being through the constituted authorities, and a government de facto, 
was clearly legal action. This, like other complaints which have been 
gotten up since the first day of December, seenis to be an afterthought. 
Read the Springfield speech of the honorable Senator from Illinois. Would 
he have spoken in such terms as he did with reference to the expected 
action in Kansas if he had looked upon it as a mere farce — that people 
could have stayed away if they pleased ? Did he say so then ? I desire to 
read it. It has been lead frequently. I wish to incorporate it in the 
proper connection as it beai's on the proposition I am discussing. I ask 
my friend from Indiana to read it for me. 

Mr. Bright read as follows : 

"Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the present time. You are 
familiar with the history of the question, and my connection with it. Swbsequent 
reflection has strengthened and confirmed my convictions in the soundness of the 
principles and the correctness of the course I have felt it my duty to pursue upon 
that subject. Kansas is about to speak for herself through her delegates assembled 
in convention to form a constitution, preparatory to her admission into the Union 
on an equal footing with the original States. Peace and prosperity now prev.iil 
throughout her borders. The law under which delegates are about to be elected is 
belicN-ed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to 
hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, 
so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elec- 
tive franchise. 



11 

*'If any portion of tlio inhny)itiuits, nctin^; under the ftilvice of political lenders in 
distant States, shsU elioose to nbseiit themselves from the polls, and withhold their 
vote?, with a view of leiivinsi the free-State Demoernts in n minority, and thus fc- 
ourina; a jiro-slaveiy constitution in opposition to the wisiics of u nuijorit.y of the 
people living under it, let the rejionsilnlity rest on those who, for partisan purposes, 
will gaerifiee the pi inciplcs they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them and 
upon the political pxirty for whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders 
they act, let the blame (>e visited of fastening upon the peo|>le of a new State, institu- 
tions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The oi-ganic act 
secures to the }>eople of Knnsjis the sole and exclusive rii;ht of forming and regu- 
lating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to no other limitation 
than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The Democratic 
party is determined to see the great fundamontal principles of the organic act 
carried out in good faith. The present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to 
be fair and just — the rights of the voters are clearly detiiied-.-and the exercise of 
those rights will be ofticiently and scrvipulously protected. 1 Fence, if the majority 
of the people of Kansas desire to have it a free State, (and we are told by the Re- 
publican party that nine-tenths of the people of that Territory are free-State men,) 
there is no obstacle in the way of bringing Kansa.s into the Union as a free State, bj 
the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformitj' with the great principles 
of the Kansas-Nebraska act; provided all the free-State men will go to the polls and 
vote their principles in accor(lance with their professions. If such is not the result, 
let the consequence be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce 
.strife, aaarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery 
agitation in the Northern Stat^js of this Union. That the Democrats in Kansas will 
perform their duty, fearlessly and nobly, according to the principles they cherish, I • 
have no doubt; and that the struggle will be such as will gladden the heart, and 
i»trength\.ni the hopes of every friend of the Union, I have entire confidence." 

Mr. CrKEEN. Now, sir, I liave had that speech read because in the con- 
nection I am now speaking it shovv.s he then regarded it as a proceeding 
(hat Would bo binding;, perfectly obligatory, and was anticipating that some 
<.»{' the contumacious would stay away and not vote, alleging at the same 
time that they would be equally bound as tliough they had appeared at the 
polls and vt)tcd. That shows that he regarded it as a legal proceeding. 
That speech was made on the r2t.h of June, tlirea days before the election 
held nn<Ier the election law of Kansas, and hence wh^n he takes another 
position, on the first day of December, it seems to me — I will not impute 
to him any motive — to have been entirely an afterthought. So understood 
the whole country ; so understood «ivery friend of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill; so understood the President, and all of the party that sustaineil him; 
and nerer until sotne 8ubse(]uent proceedings were had, was any complaint 
ever uttei'ed. It was a legal proceeding. It is easy to demonstrate, in ad- 
dition to what I have said, that there is full legislative power, including the 
power to call a couvention at the instance of the i)eople, to form a consti- 
tution pre]>aratory to their admission into the Union ; that it was with this 
view, as stated by the Senator from Illinois, that the organic act of the 
7'erritory was first passed to enable them to prepare for admission under 
the clause of the Constitution, whi(di says that Cong.iess may admit new 
States. It then r<:'^ults that the voice of the peojde, fairly expressed, de- 
manded a change of government from that of a territorial to tliat of a Slate. 
There was no jnetence of fraud at tliat time ; no pretence of any invasion 
from Missouri, or from the Camanches of the West; no pretence of im- 
proper influences ; all was admitted to be lair, regular, just, and proper. 
The first step in the proceeding, then, is a legal step of tlie people in the 
exercise of their power. Ah, aays the Senator from Vermont, they will 
hai'e lio power until Congress enables theiu to come into the Union, 



12 

Mr. CoLLAMER. I did not say thnt they had not power. They had the 
power to meet and petition, and all that, 

Mr. Green. Did you not say that they had no power? 

Mr. CoLLAMER. Not authoritative. 

Mr. Green. I understand the Senator. He spote of their political 
rights, because there is a difference between a mere physical act and a 
moral and political right. They have a physical ability to gather in mass 
meeting, and utter expressions, if they have the powe;- of articulation, and 
physical power to draw up a petition and present it to Congress. 

Mr. Collamer. And a political right. 

Mr. Green. And a political right to present it. But what political 
right have they to form a State government at any time? Never till Con- 
gress says so? He shakes his head. Can they do it before? Can they 
do this before Congress passes a provision giving them power to do so? 

Mr. Collamer. They may meet, form a constitution, and pi'esent a 
petition to Congress with the constitution for admission under it; but it is 
for Congress to say whether they will admit them in their discretion. 

Mr. Green. There is no difficulty about this subject when we come to 
a proper understanding. The admission of a State is one thing; the form- 
ation of a State anothei-. Congress cannot form a State. Congress, there- 
fore, cannot give power to the people to form a State ; for they cannot 
confer a power they do not possess. If, then, there ever is a power in a 
Territory to form a State, from whom is it derived? Not from any sister 
States, because they cannot create another State ; not from the Federal 
Government, because it cannot create a State. Then, from whom is de- 
rived the power to create a State ? From Heaven ; that is the source of 
the power. An enabling act was given to the people by Him, and Him 
only. It has been held by the wisest statesmen in this Government that 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights of man ; 
and that to secure these, rights, governments are instituted, deriving their 
just powers — from whom? From Congress ? From a sister State ? From 
an enabling act? No; but deriving their just powers from the consent of 
the governed, and whenever the consent of the governed is given, the just 
power has been conferred, and they (the governed) are the people of the 
Territory. They cannot, however, force themselves into the Union. That 
Territory belongs to all the States, and Congress is the administrator of it. 
The people of the Territory cannot appropriate the public lands to them- 
selves. They cannot oust the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Govern- 
ment. Therefore, an assent, either by admission or otherwise, must be 
given by Congress before the indej>eudence, the sovereignty of the State 
becomes complete; but the power to form a government is an original in- 
herent power which they may of right exercise when their numbers justify. 

If they may thus exercise it; if it be an original power; if it be an in- 
herent power ; if it be an inalienable power ; then it is a legal power. 
True, they cannot establish a government that would abrogate the Federal 
power. They cannot be brought into collisiou with Congress, because as 
the ownership of the Territory is in the States, and jurisdiction over it is in 
Congress, the assent of Congress must be had either before the formation, 
or after the formation of the State government, and the one is as regular as 
the other ; as the past history of the Government proyes. 



13 

In tlie uext step of this proceeding, (for that territorial gjovernment has 
been indorsed by Congress and all the authorities of this Ciovenim^'nt,) tho 
Territorial Loaiishiturc passed the convention act — that one of which the 
Senator from Illinois spoke, when he said it was just and fair in al! its pro- 
visions. It provide<l for a registry ; a registry was taken — fairly taken. 
Those objections which have been auged to it have been so completely and 
so fully and so often answerer!, that I really do not like to stop and do it 
now. I have answered them ; my colleague has answered them ; the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr, Toombs) has answered them ; various other 
Senators have answered them ; and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
BiGLEii) has answered them ; proving the employment of terms by our 
opponents in this question, which may not be designed, but which are 
calculated to convey a false imju'ession to the public mind. They say, 
generally, nineieen (Aunties only were registered, and nineteen um-egistered. 
Now, the emph)ynK;nt of langu^ige like that — I will not say is designed — 
but it is calculated to make the public at a distance — not in the city of 
Washington — but the public at a distance — believe that half the j>eople 
were disfranchised, when there is not one word of truth in it 

NoA', if we desire to investigate, according to the facts, and present the 
facts to the country, why do we not speak of the people ? Did you want 
unpopulated counties represented in convention ? I thought it was the 
people whose rights you talked about protecting, and not the barren hills 
and wastes, the prairies and the swamps. They have no voice in it, and 
ought not to have any. They are the creatures for the use of man, and not 
the masters ; they are to be used by man, and are given for his accommo- 
dation and benefit. All of the nineteen counties that had any inhabitants 
at all were attached to other counties, except two or three, and from them 
the registry officer was driven off. This is established by abundant evidence. 
In all of them only one thousand four hundred and twenty-three votes 
were given at the 4th of January election under a qualification of voters 
which would not have permitted them to vote for the delegates to the con- 
vention. The qualification for those who should vote for delegates to the 
convention was, that they should be citizens of the United States, and 
residents of the Territory on the 15th day of March. The qualification of 
those who voted on the 4th of January was, that they should then be in- 
habitants of the place. Now, if, with this broader latitude, with this free 
license for people to come in, through the influence of the emigrant aid 
societies, with all the machinery of importation, they could at this later 
period only manufacture one thousand four hundred and twenty-three 
votes, when there was no restraint of law as to the number polled, how 
many could that same locality have polled with the quali6cation required 
under the convention act on the 15th day of June preceding? lam 
assured, by good authority, not over five hundred. So that it dwindles 
into mere insignificance. But, whether large or small, whether great or 
little, it resulted from their own acts, as is proven by the testimony of 
Secretary Stanton and others. 

Then the convention is elected. It legally assembles. It performs its 
work. The people adopt the constitution finally, as they had a right to do, 
in pursuance of the principles incorporated into the organic act, as Senator 
Douglas, in his own language, asserts they were to settle these questions 
for themselves, by represenatives chosen for that purpose. Not by a direct 
vote of the people; not by a subsequent submission to a popular vote; but, 



14 

tlioiipli lie attributed tLat idea of Presideut BucLanan to his aLsence from 
the United States, as a fuudamental error, still his own report says they 
are to settle it by their representatives, ehosea for that purpose. Just in 
that way the people of Kansas did settle all questions pertaining to their 
domestic institutions, except the question of slavery ; and that question 
■was submitted to a subse^r^uent vote of the people oa the 21st of De- 
cember. 

What is arrayed against all this? What imputation is made agaiusfe 
this proceeding? What is to lessen the force of it? W'hy, says the Sen- 
ator from Vermont, (Mr. Foot,) theie were bro^ken pledges; they had a 
right to stay away and not vote ; they had assurances from the President, 
assurances from Governor Walker, assurances from Governor Stanton, and 
pledges from the candidates, that the constitution, when framed, should be 
submitted to them for ratification or rejection. I called upon the Senator 
at the time, and requested him to favor me with the evidence of his asser- 
tion. He did not have time to produce it then, but I suppose he will, if 
he can, at a more convenient season. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Collameb) went ofi' and hunted up a little item, and brought it up heye 
for his colleague, but that does not even reach the case. I know, and the 
cuuntry knows, that Governor Walker preferred that the constitution should 
be submitted ; but Goveinor Walker never did assume to pledge to the 
people that it should be submitted. Mark the difference. Governor Wal- 
ker says to them, if the convention does not submit the constitution, I 
promise you I will oppose its admission ; but that very assertion shows that 
he understood the couventioa were not bound to do it, for it implied a 
doubt whether they should submit it or not. Do you tell me that amounts 
to an assurance that the constitution should be submitted ? There is noth- 
ing like it on the record ; and when gentlemen make the assertion, they 
make it without any evidence upon which to found it. Even Governor 
Walker, with his strong proclivities to invite the action of emigrant aid 
societies to rush out a population to vote down the constitution or vote 
out slavery — even he, in his own zeal, never undertook to pledge to the 
people that it should be submitted to them for a vote. He preferred it, hs 
advocated it, he urged it; but he had no power to pledge that it should be 
submitted, and he never did. 

How is it with Governor Stanton? Governor Stanton, on the contrary, 
said expressly and explicitly that the distracting question of slavery ought 
to be submitted, and that was as a mere question of policy. Now the con- 
vention, I suppose, had more confidence in Governor Stanton than in Gov- 
ernor Walker, I presume so from their action ; for they acted on the sug- 
gestion of Governor Stanton, adopted the constitution finally in all its 
branches, and in all its parts, except the ailicle on tlie subject of slavery, 
^ and that they submitted to a vote of the people. But neither Governor, 
nor Secretary, nor President, nor anybody else, had any right to dictate to 
the convention any part of their action, either in the form of the constitu- 
tion, or the mode of its adoption. 

The election took place on the 21st of December, and the character of 
that election is a great bone of contention, I can show, by Governor Wal- 
ker's own position, that the question which constituted the real matter of 
controversy was, shall there be slavery or no slavery ? Is there anything 
else in controversy before the Senate ? Is there anything else that stirs up 
the least feeling, even iu the Republican party, save and except this slavery 



15 

qne&tion 1 Not one particle. Eveiytliing else is liuutcd up witli eager 
anxiety merely as make-weights, as it seems to me ; but there is not one 
single valid objection pointed out. On the 21st of December, then, the 
question was submitted. To disfranchised counties, or to but nineteen 
counties? No; but submitted to every county in the State, submitted to 
every citizen of the State, whether he had been registered or whether he 
had not been registered. I liave before saiil that those who failed to regis- 
ter themselves committed a wrong in their own light. But the Senator 
from Vermont said that the argument reminded him of an anecdote of a 
boy who could not count the pig-s because one of them kept running about 
all the time. Now, if that pig had to give his name to be registered, and 
would not do it — what then ? How register him ? 

Mr. CoLLAMER. Count him. 

Mr. Green. But if the law says that lie should give his name to be 
registered, so that when he came up to vote it nnght be known whether he 
was entitled to do so or not, how could you ascertain his name -jvithout lie 
gave it? That is the cause of all the difficulty. Now, it is a fact not to 
be controverted, that they did refuse to be registered, and the imperfect 
registration was the result of their own wrong. But whether right or 
wrong, whether it was the fault of the officers or the fault of the people, 
when the great question was submitted, whether registered or unregistered, 
whether entered upon the poll-list or not entered upon the poll-list, all 
were allowed to come and vote. Why did they not do it ? It is said they an- 
ticipated fraud. Anticipated fraud 1 A majority anticipate that a mi- 
nority would whip them 1 It is not a part of the American character; nor 
do I believe that to have been the reason, nor does anybody here on either 
side believe it ; but if true, it amounts to no excuse. 

But, says the Senator from Illinois, why did they not submit the whole 
constitution ? He answers the question himself by saying the only reason 
given, was that it would be voted down. Who said so? Why, the Sen- 
ator from Illinois, and, I believe, the Senator from Michigan. Who else 
said so? Did the people of Kansas say so? Some one of that convention 
maj have said so ; but the convention itself, as a convention, never put its 
action on any such ground. To represent them as being influenced by 
such a consideration when you have not the slightest evidence, I say is 
neither legitimate nor logical. 

But assumptions have been made from the beginning of this discussion 
down to the present time; and no more gross assumptions have been made 
by any Senator, than by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Why, 
said he, this election was all very fair on its face, but gross frauds have been 
perpetrated. That Senator is a distinguished lawyer; he knows the force 
and weight of evidence; but if he referred to anything that would he re- 
ceived ji-s evidence before any justice of the peace in any county of his 
State, I should like to have it pointed out. Why, said he, both the Gov- 
ernors have given it fis their opinion that a large majority of the people of 
the Territory are against the constitution. Talking about legal proceedings, 
the Senate of the United States liaving a constitution, adopted according 
to law, brought before them, it is to be overruled, broken down by the 
opinion of two gentlemen who rode through the country! Why, sir, will 
a lawyer assert that to be evidence at all ? When did they give that evi- 
dence ? Since they fell out with the Administration, and joined the enemy. 
It is no evidence at all, and comes in a very questionable shape. 



16 

Again : tlie Senator from Illinois says this constitution does not meet the 
■will of the people. Where is the evidence of that ? Why the Legislature 
elected in October passed resolutions protesting against its reception and 
admission. Does that prove tliat the constitution does not meet the will 
of the people of Kansas ? Does he not know that, when that Legislature was 
elected, the constitution had not been formed ? That Legislature was 
elected in October ; the convention had not then formed the constitution. 
Did they condemn it in advance? Did they reflect the will of their con- 
stituents ? The question had not been before the voters of the Territitory 
to say whether they approved that constitution or did not approve it; and, 
consequently, the Legislature elected could not possibly represent them and 
reflect their will on that subject. It is worse than idle, it is absolutely 
ridiculous, to say that the Legislature elected in October, before the consti- 
tution was formed, could express the will of the people on that constitution. 
The convention, chosen by the people to make the constitution, can better 
reflect the will of the people than the Legislature chosen for a different 
purpose. 

The people elected that convention to make a constitution. They had 
not then performed their work. They elected a certain set of men to go to 
the Territorial Legislature. Subsequent to that election the people's con- 
vention did form a constitution, and the Legislature undertook to pronounce 
judgment upon the work of the people's representatives. Does that afibrd 
any evidence that it would be condemned by the people? I cannot so un- 
derstand it; nor do I believe that any man who will turn his attention to it 
for one moment will believe it is entitled to any weight or consideration 
v/hatever. Even the Senator from Illinois, following the example of the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, says, "Ask the Governors what the 
will of the people there is." Is that to have any weight ? I submit, with 
due deference to the longer experience of the distinguished Senators, that 
the way to ascertain the people's will is not to ask their Governors what it 
is. Can you have the people's will except when collected in the form of 
law ? Will you look at a mob, guess at its size, and say that that overrides 
a legal vote ? You sanction that principle when you undertake to repudiate 
the action of this legal convention, because a Governor may have said he 
rode through the country and counted so many stumps and so many cabins, 
and he was inclined to think the majoiity was on that side. I trust such 
arguments will never be made here again. Moreover, the Governors were 
not chosen by the }>eople, vyhile the convention was, for the direct purpose 
of making the constitution, and their action is the best evidence of the peo- 
ple's will. 

The Legislature of the Territory was not chosen for the purpose of ex- 
pressing the will of the people on the constitution ; neither was the Gover- 
nor, who was appointed by Federal authority. 

But the great question, it is said, is, does the constitution embody the 
people's will ? Now, I come to the point which I have been incidentally 
noticing for some time. Their will is collected only through the forms of 
law. i3ut, says one Senator, we do not object to these forms of law, but we 
go for the equity of the case. Well, what is equity ? First, equity follows 
the law ; second, the rules of evidence in equity and law are the same If 
in law your evidence would not be admissible, neither will it be received in 
equity to ascertain the equity of this case. Flying reports, wild guesses, vis- 
ionary imaginations, are to be brought up to weigh down legal evidence, by 



17 

old experienced lawyers and statesmen. I am astonished at it. Tliere must 
be an impelling power beliind to rush them into error so gross, else it could 
never be done. Wliat that impelling influence is I know not. In the 
United States of America, distinguished for its endeavors to protect the peo- 
ple's rights, there has never been but one rule to collect the people's will — 
by a legal proceeding. The moment you depart from this rule, wdien you 
next have an election of President of the United Slates the ballots 
will be cast, the votes will be counted, the electors returned, and a 
wild cry will be raised outside of this Ca])itol — Governors A, B, C, 
or D will say that an immense majority of the people of the United States 
were opposed to the President. They will say he does not represent the 
piblic will ; that a majority are against him. I have already heard it said 
that Mr. Buchanan is a minority President, that Mr. Pierce was a minority 
President. Take one more step, incite the people in their freiisy to go one 
inch further under the example intimated here that you may guess at num- 
bers, and not lake the people's will in the forms of law, and you will have 
bristling bayonets and threatening cannon pointed at the walls of your 
Capitol to displace those legally elected to put in the mob and the candi- 
date of the mob. It is fraught with a danger that demands the most serious 
reflection. We should pause before we set an example so calamitous in its 
texidency. 

Does this constitution embody the people's will ? I«ay, yes; and when 
I answer, I predicate my answer upon that which cannot be controverted 
or gainsayed. When the Opposition answer, it is a loose, unsupported asser- 
tion. But the question, does it embody the people's will ? comes back with 
all its force, again and again. What is the test ? Were there disfranchised 
counties where members were not elected ? That does not af}cct it. There 
were but very faw people in them, and nearly all the people were regis- 
tered — all were, that desired it. You cannot compel a man to vote. You 
ought to give all the privilege of voting; and having the privilege, if they 
refuse to vote, the consequence must rest upon their own heads. Take the 
case of Iowa, to wdiich tlie Senator from Kentucky refeired 

Mr. Ckittenden. Not Iowa ; Wisconsin. 

Mr. Green. I thought it was Iowa to which the Senator referred. 

Mr. Crittendex. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Green. I think I am correct, and the Senator will see that I am 
correct in a moment. He was upon the point that a constitution was 
formed by them, and the boundaiy, or some other part, was not acceptable 
to Congress. Congress said to them, you may come in, if you conform 
your boundary to the northern boundary of the State of Missouri, and com- 
ply with certain conditions. The constitution went back to the State, and 
Congress never heard anything more of it; and I will tell you why. The 
people voted it down. Congress undertook to change the boundary which 
the people had inserted in the first constitution, and to prescribe terms to 
the^ii. They voted down the ])roposition which Congress made to them, 
and subsequently formed a new constitution ; but when they did come into 
the Union, what was the evidence that it embodied the people's will ? 

Mr. Harlan. Will the Senator allow me a moment ? 

Mr. Green. Certainly. 



18 

Mr. Harlan. Congress prescribed no new boundary to Iowa, as the 
Senator will see by examining tbe act. 

Mr, Green. It prescribed some conditions wliicli they repudiated. How 
•was the second constitution received ? By a submission to the people. 
What was the vote upon that? Now you want clear, unmistakable evi- 
dence that the constitution embodies the people's will. In the case of Iowa, 
over nine thousand four hundred and fifty voted for the constitution, and 
nine thousand and sixty voted against the constitution, and three counties 
■were disfranchised. If the votes of those three counties had been brought 
in, and counted in the negative, they would have overturned that majority. 
Yet you see the forms of law were observed. One of those counties, which 
seems to be lather remarkable, was named Buchanan ; not a vote was re- 
ceived from it. There were two other counties from which not a vote was 
received ; but yet it was their own negligence. The law afforded them the 
opportunity, and if they did not avail themselves of that opportunity, they 
were bound by the decision of those who went to the polls and voted. So 
in Kansas; so in California; so in every instance. I believe there never 
has been a vote taken in the United States in which every man participated 
who was entitled. 

Take the case of the recent amendments to the constitution in the State 
of Pennsylvania. I am informed by the Senator from that State that they 
can poll about fi^e hundred thousand votes in the State. Last year they 
adopted some amendments to their constitution, less than one hundred and 
forty thousand voting. The highest vote that any amendment received 
was one hundred and sixteen or one hundred and eighteen thousand. Yet 
it was^ the will of the people — the legally expressed will. Those who do 
not think it proper to come forward and exercise the I'ights which are ex- 
tended to them, are bound by the decision that is made. Deal with Kansas 
on the same principle; extend to her the same rule of action, and you will 
be estopped from finding any foul t or making any complaint. ' But every 
time they hear this word estopped, a cold shudder seems to run over these 
Republican Senators. Estopped ! They say that is the lav/yer's plea. I 
trust we are not opposed to law and order. I trust we will ever act on the 
legal rules established by centuries of experience, by enlightened human 
reason, as best calculated and designed to protect the rights of the people. 
On those we ever act ; and when we depart from them, we will be not only 
at sea without rudder and without compass, but we will be in a terrific 
storm diiyiug us upon the rocks of destruction. 

But one of the great and important points — it looms up with great mag- 
nificence in the Opposition here — is the vote on the 4th of January. After 
the constitution had been finally adopted, and was complete, on the 21st 
day of December, after the work of the convention had been consummated, 
a Legislature meets — not appointed for that purpose, not selected for that 
purpose, because when they were elected, in October, the constitution had 
not been formed — but in spite of that, without instruction from the people, 
without authority from the people, they undertake to defeat the will of the 
people by ordering a subsequent election. I would like to know if I could 
dare to ask that question, who gave instructions out there to get up that 
vote? Whence did the orders emanate ? Who sent them the advice? It 
makes no difference to me how it originated, its consequences (are just the 
same ; but, as a matter of curiosity, to go into and fill up the vacant spaces 
in the history of this strange transaction, I would like to know who issued 



19 

the orders. Had tli.it Lec;islature tlie power to order an olodion? Wliy, 
say Senators, it liad as iiiucli power over the subject of a constitution as 
had any preeediiirj Legishiture, I say they had not. I have before stated 
to you that the source of power was the people, not the Li'<rishiture. They 
only make use of the Legislature as a legal instrumentality to collect the 
people's will. The people instructed the Legislature to call that conven- 
tion. The peoj)le had by a direct vote, said, we want a State organization. 
Therefore, when the Legislature met, they were but doing and performing, 
in the language of the report, " a ministerial act," providing a fair, just, and 
equitable method for the people to exercise their rights, and elect delegates 
to form a constitution. When that convention assembled, it was, in con- 
templation of law, according to all ideas of representative government, the 
people of Kansas; and could no more be interfered with, stayed, checked, 
or controlled in its action, than could a convention in one State be con- 
U'olled by a Legislature in anothe'-. The Legislature of the Territory, 
after this constitution is adopted, undertakes to set it aside; undertakes to 
make a submission in a manner that must set it aside, and for the design of 
setting it aside, if it could have any legal eft'ect whatever. But who ever 
heard cf a State constitution being thus submitted ? 

Now, if I have been successful in proving that the steps taken there 
were legal steps, were usual steps, were jiroper steps, all of them ended in 
the consummation of the instrument on the 21st of December, and it was 
then a fixed fact and a constitution of a State — not in the Uiiion, because 
it cannot be in the Union without the assent of Congress. Then, being a 
constitution, thus formed and emanating from the people, it could be no 
more interfered with than could the constitution of the State of New York 
be voted down by submitting it to a vote of the ]>eople. What would any 
Senator think if he should hear it stated that in his own State the Legisla- 
ture had said, " we will see whether this is the constitution or not, and we 
will submit it to a vote of the people?" Suppose the constitution had 
been performing its functions for twenty years, yet that at once somebody, 
like the sentimental German mentioned by Mr. Webster, should say, "an 
idea strikes me ; let us see whether our constitution embodies the people's 
will ; and let us submit it to a vote of the people." When the Senator 
from Kentu'dvy holds forth the idea it strikes me with real astonishment. 
I had not learned in the same school. He uses this language: 

" Was it not of consequence, was it not of importance, to know tlie will of tlie 
people, whether tliey really did approve of this constitution which was about to be 
oflFereJ to Conjrress — a law which, when Congress puts its imprimatur on it by ad- 
mitting the State, is to be permanent? Would it be any harm to take tlie vote over 
and over atrain ? What objection could there be to it? You might have said, 'it is 
an unnecessary care of the ])eople's rights; you have had their decision once; there- 
fore, it is not necessary to have it again ;' but out of abundant care and abundant 
zeal you may choose to take it again and again, and ascertain whether there may be 
change or variation in the public opinion. Where is tiie man who can say aught 
against it if Do you object to it because it is taking too great care of public liberty ? 
paying too great respect to popular rights? J^'obody will take tiiat ground." 

According to this idea of the Senator, although a constitution may be 
fairly and finally adopted, yet we should adopt the jirinciple of saying 
there may be a change of opinion, and we will take the sense of the people 
again and again and again upon it. After Kentucky has adopted a consti- 
tution, and the people have lived under it for years, would it be in the 
power of any one all at once to say, " an idea strikes me ; I will see wbetber 



20 

this embodies the will of the people; let us take the vote again and again 
and again." You can with as much propriety do it in the one case as in 
the other. If that convention adopted a constitution at all, you could no 
more interfere with it than cuuld th'i Legislature of Kentucty interfere 
with their constitution hy saying, "we will ascertain again and again 
whether the people now approve of it." It is contraiy to the princi- 
ples of government. Take the case on the election of the smallest ofificer 
in the smallest municipality. Even in the election of a constable, could 
any one the next day after the election say, " let us try this over again, 
and see if there is any change ;" and the day after that say, " let us try it 
over and over again, in order to see if there ig any change in public opin- 
ion." I expect Colonel Fremont would like to have adopted the doctrine 
of the Senator from Kentucky, in order to try the presidential election over 
again. (Laughter.) I remember when I went to scliool and played at 
marbles, the boys used to cry "slips" on me, in order to try it over again. 
When a power has been exercised according to law, thei'e is no power to 
try it over again except by pursuing all the customary legal steps requisite 
to reach the same end. 

But to create doubt, to excite suspicion, to generate distrust, and make 
men afraid to do their duty, the Opposition insinuate and charge fraud. I 
have heard the cry of fraud so often, that I would almost think the old 
maxim had been adopted — I do not apply it to Senators — but a very dis- 
tinguishing man once sakl, a lie well stuck to and oft repeated was as good 
as the truth. Fraud ? What fraud atfecting either one of the elections 
relating to the adoption of this constitution ? I challenge any Senator to 
show it. What fraud ? Was there fraud when the people voted and said 
in an emphatic voice, we want a State government? It was not alleged. 
Was there fraud when the people of Kansas elected delegates, and sent 
them up to a convention to make a constitution? Neither has that been 
alleged. Was there fraud affecting the validity of the decision on the 
slavery question on the 21st of December? That is not alleged. 

It has been said by the Senator from Kentucky that some two thousand 
of the votes cast on that day are believed to be fraudulent votes. Suppose 
they were ; it leaves the question unaffected. The Senator from Georgia 
well answered that objection. But what is the evidence that there we?e 
any fraudulent votes? Why, says the Senator, the President of the Coun- 
cil, Mr. Babcock, and Mr. Deitzler, Speaker of the House of Representa- 
tives, both say they rode through the country, and did not see cabins 
enough to hold the people who voted. Look at the character of the evi- 
dence. Here are two men, called voluntarily — not in the performance of 
duty in obedience to law, without any jurisdiction over the subject — to see 
the fairness of the opening and counting of this vote; and they say there 
were six thousand seven hundred and ninety-five votes cast. They then 
volunteer a statement in regard to some of the votes. Who are they? 
Bitter enemies of the constitution — men who have been classed in the se- 
cret legion — men who have been arrayed against all government — men 
who have doubtless taken the secret oath reported here as being dicovered 
and brought to light, and embodied in this report by Senator Douglas — 
an oath by all means to accomplish their nefarious ends. That class of 
persons, standing out in rebellion, standing out in defiance of law, standing 
out in opposition to Federal authority as well as territorial authority, with 
a sworn purpose to defeat that State organization, with a sworn purpose to 



21 

dofoat that coiistitutioii, who have (akt^n an oath to proliiliit slavery — tliey 
are the witnesses eallocl upon by the honorable Senator from Kentucky. 
They volunteered a statement, and made a statement, not in tlie discharge 
erf' any official duty ; and the statement itself sliows that they knew nothing 
about that of wiiieli they spoke; for they say, we have been llircaigh those 
co^inties, and are satisfied tliere is not that number of peo]>le there. 

Why, Mr. I'lesident, it is a fact known to those fainiliar with the subject, 
Uiat in Jolinson eouiity there was a reservation of land for the Indians of 
about double the quantity to which they Were entitled under the treaty. 
It was discovered ; and citizens, before it was opened up to settlement by 
the o])erafion of tlie Department, went there, and made their locations all 
over it. They could not live on it, because it is ))roliibited under the res- 
ervation ; but it would ultimately be oj^eu to market. Those holding 
daims, could not inake permanent improvements, and perfect them, and 
■were compelled to live in the small towns around, and watch their claims, 
until the reservation sholild be opened by the Department. That is the 
secret of this whole matter. Tliere was not fraud there. As Governor 
Walker has well said, there was no danger of Missourians undertaking to 
influence those elections ; there was no danger of Missouiians going over 
there, and voting. I have his evidence in this document to vindicate them 
from the charges that have been so unjustly heaped upon their heads. 

But was there no fraud at the election on the 4th of January ? Yes; 
tliere was. There can be no qusstion about that. They cast more votes 
than they had in the wliole Territory on the same day at the same voting 
at a hotly contested election. On the constitution there was no contest at 
all. Our side did not vote at all on that question ; the constitution being 
finally adopted. We stand upon our rights and we do not intend to be 
trifled with, said the Democratic party. I do not mean pro-slavery men 
only, for there are hundreds of men from the Northern States who are in 
favor of a State organization, and then, if subsequent events should show 
that they ought not to have slavery, to change the constitution, who will 
act shoulder to shoulder with us and do do it. Tbey said tlje constitution 
Injing finally adopted, we will not attend the polls. Hence these same peo- 
ple who could only poll for State officers, at a hotly contested election, six 
thousand two hundred and thirty-eight votes, at an election where there was 
no contest, polled ten thousand and sixty-four. What do you think of 
them? Why was this? There was no diflerence in the qualification 
which the voters should possess in order to exercise the elective franchise. 
What constituted the difference in numbers? This: at the one place they 
were watched, there was a contending ])arty arrayed against them ; in the 
otlier case they were not watched and ])ut in as many votes as they pleased. 
We know they are a class who are in the habit of making use of fictitious 
mimes; ^nd that is proved by Mr. Secretary Stanton. If a man will use 
a fictitious name for one purpose, as we have proved it on him, will he not 
do so again for another purpose ? 

It is also known that over four hundred came from Lawrence and voted 
at that day in Leavenworth. This is shown by the Lawrence vote. The 
vote at Leavenworth was four hundred larger than was their actual vote. 
The vote for State officers at Lawrence fell off" a correspoiuling number; 
and yet, on the vote on the constitution at Lawrence, they gave more votes 
than they ever gave in their lives before. They involve coutradiction ; 
they involve absurdities; and when we see their course, as portrayed by 



22 

Govornor Stanton and Governor Walkei', wc have a riglit to regard them 
as spurious. I care not, however, if they were the most legal imaginable; 
I care not if you prove them to be the bona fide citizens voting; it was 
voting on a subject previously decided, and I trust that this Congress will 
never set an exam])le which would induce the people to say : " we will call 
an election on a day not appointed by law, when a question has been finally 
decided, and we will then vote just as many votes as we please." It is well 
known that, if this principle was to be sanctioned, the subsequent election 
would always pi-evail. Knowing exactly how many votvs were previously 
cast, knowing what they had to work up to, they could of course manu- 
facture a majority, and thus lead to fraud, to violence, and bloodshed. The 
character of those persons may be pretty well understood from what I have 
quoted in the I'eport presented to the Senate; but, as still better evidence 
upon the same subject, I beg leave to have read an extract from a speech 
delivered in New York, June 11, 1856, by the very distinguished Senator 
from Illinois. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

"On the other hand, in Kansas you find that the New England Emigrant Aid 
Society, through pauperism, with a capital of $5,000,000, undertook to regulate the 
Territories fifteen hundred miles off, and to control their liherties, without respect fjo 
the rights, wishes, and interests of the people of the Territory. This foreign inter- 
fere nc^'e on tlie pai't of the Free-Soilers; tliis foreign interference by corporations 
from New England to regulate Western affairs, has created in Kansas what every 
man liad a right to suppose it would create — civil war, dissension, violence, and 
bloodshed. For every drop of blood that has been shed in the Territory of Kansas, 
the 'Black Republican' leaders are responsible. (Loud cheers.) It is a part of their 
line of policy to get up civil war there, and then make political capital out of the 
innocent blood shed by their tools and dupes, for the purpose of jjromoting their 
candidates in tlie Presidential election. What is their excuse for not obej'ing the 
law in Kansas? Tliey tell us that the laws enacted by tlie Territorial Legislature 
are barbarous and inhuman! 

" Out. of a volume of at least a thousand pages, containing innumerable enactments, 
applicable to every relation in life, and protecting every interest in society, yet out 
of that long list of laws reiatiTig to all the affairs of human concern, only two 
short enactments have been specified as being either unjust or ii-nproper. One of 
them relates to the question of slavery, and the other regulates the affairs of elec- 
tions. It is worthy of remark, and should never be forgotten, that under neither of 
those laws has any one case yet arisen — no one case has arisen under those two laws 
which are objected to as being improper. No case has ever arisen, no writ has ever 
been issued, no trial has ever been had, no act of violence has ever occurred, under 
either of these two obno.xioiis laws. Then, what excuse is there for that violence? 
Why, these men, tliese Abolitionists, these 'Black Piepublicans,' send out their agents 
thei'e to get up strife and bloodshed, to be copied into the Abolition papers here for 
political effect. Contributions are taken to buy Sharpe's rifles, and to send men out 
there to resist the law. 

" Preachers of the Gospel, instead of expounding the Holy Scriptures, convert the 
house of God into a recruiting office for brigands to go to Kansas to sr.ir up strife 
and civil war, in order that the Tribune, Times, Post, and other Abolition papers 
here may portray tlie horrors of the border ruffians. Tiiese men, sent out by your 
Beeehers, by your Sillinians, by your Theodore Parkers, by your Garrisons, go into 
Kansas, burn innocent people's houses; and when the court issues a writ against the 
house-burner, and when the sheriff goes to execute that writ, they shoot down the 
officers of the law ; screen the house-bui'ner from the penalty of the law, and pro- 
tect him in his violence, and then talk of the consequences and effects of the Nebraska 
bill. Every act of violence that has occurred in Kansas in resistance to the officers 
of the law, has been either house violence, murder, breach of the peace, or some 
other crime recognized r.s such in all civilized countries; but tlie 'Black Republicans' 
have protected tlie criminal in iiis lawless course." 



23 

Now, Ml. rivsidfiit, tliat is pivsontcd as evidence to show tlio cliuractor of 
tliosc who have <;ottcn iij) the opposition, who have maiiannl tlie opposition, 
wlio have eontiolieil the opposition. Senator Douo lass well jiortrayed them. 
"When the Senator from Kentucky says the hist expression of tlie people 
ought to ])revail, I must say to him that, with some qualification, it is correct. 
Tlie last h'gal expression on the subject, properly submitted to the people, on 
which they have a rii^-ht to vote, ouixlit to idvvail, an<l \\ill prevail; but a 
subject having: been completely decided, no other proceeding; ean be insti- 
tuted to undo what has been done. P2ven when they did attempt to undo 
it, it was by the use of instrumentalities like those portrayed by the Sena- 
tor from Illinois. They souglit to get up strife and bloodshed to fill the 
columns of the Tribune, his piesent friend and supporter, the Post, and 
other papers in the Northern States, to manufacture capital for political 
purposes. I hope the Senate and llouse of liepresentatives will take a 
course to remove these means if they desire to make use of them for elec- 
tioneering purposes, and to quiet the subject forever. 

But, sir, it has been said that the Legislature instituted a commission to 
go around and collect evidence to prove what frauds have been conimitted 
at the various elections; that this commission'has been perambulating the 
country collecting the facts, and that these facts sustain all the charges of 
fraud. \ said many weeks ago that I had no doubt of the fact that in 
most of the elections of the United States, frauds to a greater or less ex- 
tent are conuiiitted. It is because of the imperfection of man. If he were 
perfect, there would be no difficulty, and he would need no law. But what 
I have ever said, and what I will adhere to, is that no fraud has been es- 
tablished affecting the validity of tliis constitution. If there were frauds 
in the October election, they do not affect the constitution adopted by the 
people ; if there were frauds in the election on the 4th of January at Del- 
aware Crossing, they do not affect any of the proceedings in the formation 
of the constitution ; if there were frauds at the election on the 21st of De- 
cember, they do not affect it, because there was majority enough without 
even the alleged fraudulent votes. Why, then, shall we stop to inquire 
about the proceedings of that commission ? 

But, sir, the whole action of that commission is null and void, and enti- 
tled to no consideration for vaiious reasons. First, the legislative authority 
that created that commission had no jurisdiction over the subject they un- 
dei'take to investigate. They had no jurisdiction over the election of the 
21st of December. They had no jurisdiction over the other elections. All 
that they could do was to test the legality of their own election. Having 
no jurisdiction whatever on this subject, any commission they may have 
created is null and void, and its acts are of no weight or consequence 
whatever. 

More than that, they could not even swear a man so as to bind him. 
They had not power to administer an oath ; and a man sworn by them, 
even if he made a false statement, under that form of oath, would not be 
guilty of perjury. AVe know the instruments they could make use of, and 
the character of the persons they could call on for testimony. Their ob- 
ject was to break down the legal constitution of the Territt)ry. That was 
tlieir sole pur])ose. It was their declared purpose. It was not to ascertain 
the truth, for at one of the examinations at Leavenworth they asked a 
witness whether he knew of any fraudulent votes in that place i He re- 
plied, "yes, I do; four hundred came from Lawrence, and voted on your 



24 

side." "Oh," said the commissioner, "we do not want to hear a word 
about that." The question was asked of another, "do you know of any ille- 
gal vote being given?" lie replied, "yes; forty or fifty Germans, living in 
^lissouri, were carried over by Pomeroy, and voted in Atchison county." 
"Oil, hush," said the questioner, "we do not want to know anything about 
that." 

Mr. Polk. They were carried from "Weston. 

Mr. GreeiV. Such proceedings were common. I attach no importance 
to that commission for the reasons that I have assigned. They had no 
jurisdiction, and, therefore, their acts could have had no validity, and the 
oath administered by them would have had no validity. No perjury could 
be committed under it. Therefore, they could get their own tools to swear 
to what they pleased ; and I am not certain that they could not get a re- 
spectable number to swear anything, even if the oath were legal — I mean 
respectable in point of numbers, not character. 

But, Mr. President, if I were to follow on in a close examination of all 
this, I should consume too much time, weary the Senate, and travel over 
and over again the ground others have occupied so well. I shall, there- 
fore, hasten on as rapidly as I can. It has been demonstrated that a legal 
constitution is presented. It has been demonstrated that there is no legal 
evidence to prove that it does not embody the Avill of the people, and that 
if we depart from the legal rules we are striking at the foundation of civil 
liberty. Why, then, shall Kansas not be admitted ? What reason can be 
urged against it ? The principal part of the Opposition on the other side 
of tlie Chamber is alone in consequence of the slave question. They are 
now but carrying out, when the question is first presented in its practical 
form, what the Senator from Illinois, with great power, said was their fixed 
and determined purpose in 1856. Here is what Mr. Douglas said : 

" What were those principles that they (that is, the Republican party) proudly 
and defiantly proclaimed to their opponents? They were, first, the restoration of 
that black line called the Missouri compromise; secondly, the repeal of the fugitive 
slave law; thirdly, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; fourthly, 
the abolition of the slave-trade among the States; fifthly, the admission of no moce 
tei-ritory or States into this Union, unless slavery was first prohibited ; sixthly, the 
crucifixion of every man who voted for Kansas and Nebraska." 

I am afraid they have crucified one by getting him in their embrace. I 
hope not ; because I yet believe that he is not influenced in his opposition 
by the consideration of the existence of slavery in the constitution. I be- 
lieve it; and I believe the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Stuart) when be 
makes the same assertion ; and I believe the Senator from California (Mr. 
Broderick) when he makes a similar assertion. They arc governed by 
one principle ; but they are building up and strengthening a dangerous 
party that exists in this country, whose fixed purpose is to admit no more 
slave States. The first time that practical issue is presented, Ave find the 
Senator from Illinois, our old leader, Avho has fought so many gallant bath 
tles, and gained so many brilliant victories, going over on that issue which 
they tender, though he may be governed, and is governed, by another con- 
sidei'ation. The motive does not sanctify the deed. In a moral sense, be- 
tween him and his Creator, it doubtless does ; but in a political sense, when 
practical results are to follow, the motive is a small matter. The deed is 
good or bad, according to the results that follow from it. At the time he 
portrayed this as the platform of the Republican party, he said : 



25 

"The Cincinnnti convention \m'\ accepted tlint pn\uitk't. jukI has negative'] every 
one of llie jiroposilions and Ims proclaimed ft creed wliieli meets tlie cordial appro- 
bation of every Democrat in America, no matter from what point of the con)i>asshe 
may come." 

This was in 185G. Tn 1858 the jTactical (lucstion is proscntc-J. In 1856 
it was wroiitj to oj)j)ose the admissioii of a State on account of its toler- 
ating shivorv. In 1858 that question conies befoi-e the Senate of the 
United States, and every Republican opposes it, for, as he lias before said, 
their creed is to oppose that admission ; and he, for other considerations, 
not on account of slavery, cooperates in the work. Without his aid, his 
lead, his guidance, in this Chamber, and his friends in the other House, 
Kansas would have been a young sister of the (yonfederaey many weeks 
ago ; and that very work which lie <leprecated, that very purpose which 
he said constituted an issue with the I>emocrac3-, he aids them in carrying 
out — not for the same motive and reason that tliey have, but in practical 
results it is all the same thing. 

As the Senator from New York {Mr. Skwakd) announced to us, the 
real question is, shall any more States ever be admitted ? The real ques- 
tion for the South is not the permanejit existence of slavery in Kansas ; 
that is but the John Doe and Kieliard Roe of tlic case. The South, of 
necessity, as well as the North, with the enterprise and energy of the 
American character, will need expansion. It must have expansion. If 
penned in with a Chinese wall applied only to the blacks, with the privi- 
lege of exit to the whites, when the country becomes over populated, the 
disparity will become greater and greater between the two races, and insur- 
rection, civil war, and extermination will be the natural consequences. 
This you seek to hasten ; this the Republican party of the United Stat<js 
proclaim to be their supreme purpose. To increase their strength, to 
increase their hopes, to encourage them in their prospects, our best of 
friends on this question, heretofore, have gone over to them. I speak it 
with extreme regret. . I will never build up the enemy of my country, even 
if I do have some small objections to the proceedings of my political 
friends. Even if the proceedings in Kansas did not come up exactly to my 
notions, I would not go to the aid of the enemy, on a dangerous vital point 
like this, that strikes a fatal blow at the heart of our country. 

My old friend from Kentucky, too, I find en that side ; not for the pur- 
pose of aiding them — I know his patriotism too well to believe that — but 
because he has objections to the proceedings in Kansas. AVell, whether 
he has objections ill or well founded, he should not aid in building up, and 
I hope he may not, a party which will, if any party ever does, divide this 
Union. The more especially am I astonished at him, in consequence of 
another reason. I understand him as being favorable to the principles of 
tlie American party. I am no American \n that sense, but I have no hos- 
tility to them personally, and do not esteem them dangerous, in compari- 
son to the Republicans. To one of their principles, at least, I heartily 
subscribe — that no man ought to be permitted to vote until he is natu- 
ralized. That, however, is a question for the States, not Congress. But, 
sir, this emigrant aid society seeks to abolitionize Kansas ; and their pro- 
gramme is to extend to every other Territory, after succeeding there, 
llere is their organization. Their purposes are declared, and the instru- 
inentalities they intend to use are shown. Here is what they say in their 
address : 



26 

"Of tlie whole emigration from Europe, amounting to some four liundred thou- 
sand persons, tliere can be no difficulty in inducing some thirty or forty thousand to 
take the same direction," [to Kansas.] 

They are to Lring their appliances to bear on the freshly-arrived emi- 
grant before he becomes familiar with our institutions and induce him to 
go to Kansas to abolitionize Kansas. These are the instrumentalities they 
make use of. The Senator from Kentucky, abhorent as he esteems that 
class, as much as he thinks they ought not to be permitted to participate 
in the Government, is to encourage and aid the veiy paily that makes use 
of them to accomplish this damning deed. How far will they be able to 
accomplish tireir ends, by taking their stand at emigrant ships, and catching 
a, newly-arrived emigrant, and before he becomes familiar with our insti- 
tutions, before he becomes imbued with the character of our Govern- 
ment, extending to him a hand and saying : " I will help you to go into a 
new Territory about being opened, if you will keep African slavery out of 
there ?" 

They apply to him arguinents like these : " The African comes into 
competition with your labor, and it is your interest to vote against slavery." 
Thus, that class are deceived, misled, many of them honestly misled. They 
have prejudices against slavery, and they are strengthened in it if they are 
taken in hand by the emigrant aid societies, whose purpose is to keep up a 
relentless war against slavery, and against the South. They continue to 
do this by making use of the emigrant, and my old friend from Kentucky 
still stands by them. They have done it to a great degree in regard to 
Kansas. We, of Missouri, from our proximity, from the facility of our set- 
tlements over the line, maintained a permanent majority in the Territory 
of actual bona fide inhabitants, and defeated their schemes up to the adop- 
tion of this constitution, and because they encouraged this sort of subse- 
quent emigration, they now think they have a majority. I should not be 
surprised if they had ; but up to that time we had the majority. By sub- 
sequent proceedings, making use of instrumentalities like these, they sought 
to prevent Kansas from entering the portals of the Union. 

Mr. President, establish this as the system, establish this as the settled 
policy of the Government, by the aid of those of the South who may have 
some little peculiarity of distinction, and are called by the name American 
rather than Democrat, still our interest in the great question is none the 
less identical; and if ruin should overtake us by Southern defection, the 
fatal effects will fall upon all alike, while execrations will follow the faith- 
less. It is not the importance of holding slaves in Kansas that is the great 
question ; but the decree is to go forth from the decision of this question 
whether the South shall be permitted to expand as w,ell as the North. Dis- 
•ruise it as you may, explain it as often as you please, proclaim it from the 
house-tops, and publish it from hill to hill, and from mountain to moun- 
tain, let it echo and reecho over the valley that A, B, and C did not vote 
against the bill on that account, still the public judgment will stand that 
it was on account of slavery. Then Black Republicanism — I use the term 
with respect — will become bolder, and onward and onward in its career, 
crushing out the last hope of Democratic aid at the North ; and will never 
find its barrier until it meets the sullen, stubborn cannon of the South. 

To the Democratic party of the North, noble, bold, and true as they are 
and have been to us, though we may differ on some peculiarities of the 
proceeding in Kansas, are we to bid them an everlasting farewell ? I trust 



27 

we arc not; but wliotlior we do or do not, is their influence' to be cast in 
the scale, in a cause like this, that will be for weal or for woe to the Union ? 
Do it, and you break down the last hope of Deinoeracy. Do it, and that 
party which has hold the reins of (Jovernnu iit, under which wc have pros- 
pered, expaiitlcd, proijressed, as no other jn'ople on the i^dobe have, falls 
powerless, scattered into forty thousand atoms. The pride, the honor, the 
jjlory of the party luus been that it was not confined to the South or the 
North ; that it was not confined to the East or the West; an<l 1 trust the 
time will, never come wlien the Democratic party will be thus circum- 
scribed. The scorching sun of the South will wither up Ue})ublicanism. 
It can fructify only in tlie snows and iceberp;s of the Noi'th. There is 
somethiin;- cold in the heart that sustains it. The warm, oushing feelings 
of the man that sympathizes with the whole country never permits it to 
find a lodgment. If, on a question like this, the Democratic party is to be 
broken np and torn asunder — if a sectional party is to be substituted for 
it — if a single idea, and that idea based on the right of (Government to 
annihilate the property of a citizen, is to predominate — the consequences 
will be u})on those who take the fatal step. However rightful the motive 
may be ; however praiseworthy the object, it never can be explained ; the 
people cannot be deceived ; they will know that it was on account of 
slavery. The moral influence of this decision will be felt as decisive action 
on the one side or the other. It will either be to sustain the Constitution 
and rights of the people, the rights of the South, and the rights of the 
North — for if I could bound my vision by the line that separates the slave- 
holding from the non-slaveholding States, I would deserve to be thrown 
out of the walls of the Capitol — or that party thus expansive in its views, 
noble in its purposes, and thereby powerful for good, w'ill be broken down. 
If it is done by the aid or sanction of Southern men, the consequences to 
the South and North will be equally disastrous. 

We are appealed to on another subject. It has been said General Cal- 
houn has given certificates to the anti-slaver}- party in Kansas. Well, sir, 
suppose he has done so, is that a reason why you and I shall defeat a great 
principle? I told you in the beginning tliat "Kansas" is but the form of 
the issue, and the name of the case. Shall we sacrifice the ojiportunity of 
establishing a great principle, vital to the South, and, as far as the Nortli 
depends upon the South, vital to the North ? — for our interests are so in- 
terlocked that they never can be separated without injury to both. I say 
this is a vital (juestion, and the principle is not to be affected by the elec- 
tion of officeholders tliere. Where is the Senator, where is the member 
of tlM House of Representatives, who will say, "I would vote to admit 
Kansas if my party had prevailed in the State election ? I would vote to 
a<lmit Kansas if the American party had been elected i I would vote to 
admit Kansas if the Republican ticket had been elected ; but I will vote 
against it if the Democratic ticket is elected ?" Where is the Democrat 
who will say, on the reverse, " I would vote to admit it, if the Democrats 
carried the election ; but I will vote against it if either of the other parties 
had carried it ? " 

When you act upon that principle, you violate the Constitution of your 
country that you liave sworn to support. That Constitution gives you a 
right to look into the constitution of a new State, to see if it be republican. 
It does not give you the right to go and inijuire who has been elected 
Governor and members of the State Legislature. \\'ith the same pro- 



28 

prietj you might inquire wlietlier Governor Wise has been legally elected ; 
whether Governor Banks has been legally elected ; and you iniglit insti- 
tute a commission with as much propriety as the Kansas Legislature did, 
to see if frauds were committed in the election of Governor Banks, or in 
the election of Governor Wise, or in any State election. AVhat right 
have you, then, to look into that question ? None ; and if not, what right 
have you to vote against the admission of a State merely because the newly 
elected State officers are not such as you approve ? If the Constitution 
does not give you that right, you dare not attempt to exercise it. 

Again : the Senator from Illinois complained, some two or three weeks 
ago, bitterly complained, that Calhoun was here m the city, and keeping 
the people still in doubt whether the Democratic ticket was elected, or 
whether the Republican ticket was elected. He absolutely complained of 
that. Last night, when he addressed the Senate, he spoke of the fact of 
issuing the certificates, and he complained still louder. Why these double 
complaints — in one case for not acting, and in the other case because he 
did act ? It reminds me of certain persons of. whom it was said they were 

"Like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, 

"And saying. We hav-e piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have 
mourned uuto you, and ye have not lamented. 

"For Jolm came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 

" The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say," Behold a man glutton- 
ous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." 

He then complaind because it was not done ; and, on the other hand, 
he now complains still more loudly because it is done. But I care noth- 
ing about it in either event. It is none of my right to stop and inquire 
into the election. The Constitution under which I am acting does not 
give me that privilege ; and if I dare transgress the boundary of my right 
and duty under the Constitution in the one case, where shall I stop in any 
other case ? 

Now, Mr. President, I intend to close my remarks. My object has been 
to show that there has been no fraud affecting the legality of this proceed- 
ing. That there have been frauds in all the elections, I think highly 
probable ; but so there have been in New York city ; so there have been 
in Baltimore; so there have been in Louisville, wdiere, I believe, two 
thousand men were disfranchised at the last election — at least it has been 
so reported ; it may not be true. 

Mr. Seward. Will the honorable Sentitor allow me to state one thing 
I would like to hear him upon in this connection ? 

Mr. Green. Certainly. 

Mr. Seward. I wish to ask the honorable Senator whether the Lecomp- 
ton constitution did not direct the canvass of the votes cast upon the con- 
stitution itself, and in both elections, to be made within eight days after the 
elections were held ; whether, in regard to the question of fraud, he ■attaches 
no importance whatever to the delay which has attended the ascertaining 
ami reporting of the results of those elections? If the honorable Senator 
will take it in kindness, I should like to hear him on that point. 

Mr. Green. It does not embarrass me in the least ; the subject does not 
require me to be bashful. The election on the 4th of January, for State 
officers, is a question with which we have no concern. It is an election 
that cannot come before us, and I should be travelling beyond my duty, 
and touching upon ground that does not properly belong to me, if I should 



20 

undertake to give any opinion at all upon tlu- sul>jcct. Suppose the 
return?' wt-iv to he made in eii^dit days. Wore they or were they not? I 
do not know, nor does the Senator from New York. Suppose they were 
not made in eight days : iloes that atiect the legality of this constitution 
al'ter it has ln-eome a linaHty, after it has been adopted and beeomc an 
^■^itirety ! Could it arteet any vote in this Chamber? 

While the Senator from Xew York was asking me this (piestion, the 
momentary pause 1 made brought to my mind another subject, upon which 
I must say a few words. It is this : it has been alleged on the other side 
of the Cluunber that the submission of the seventh article of the constitu- 
tion, including the slave clause, was iiot a fair submission. The people 
could have voted out slavery, if they had a majority, and chose to come 
forward ; yet they say, if they had voted it out, slavery would still have 
been retained in Kansas as perfectly as if that article had been retained. 
The able and distinguished Senator from JX'laware, (Mr. Bayaud,) so 
completely and so triumphantly answered that objection that 1 should do 
wrong to undertake to improve it. I cannot do it ; it is not susceptible of 
imj^rovement ; it is conclusive and unanswerable. 

But there is one poiut growing out of the same idea that I must notice ; 
and that is, that point upon which the Senator from Illinois dwelt so long 
when he spoke of the right of property being older than the Constitution, 
and he held that declaration up to animadvert upon. lie contended that 
it was a fallacy ; and because the Washington Union published that fal- 
lacy, therefore he would not vote for the editor for a certain office. I do 
not complain of his action on that <piestion. He had a right to do it. 
My opinion is founded on the Declaration of Independence: we hold these 
truths to be self-evident — speaking of the white race — that all men are 
created free and equal, and endowed by tlieiv Creator with certain inalien- 
able rights; and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
piness — that pursuit of happiness includes the acquisition of property ; and 
to secure these ends governments are instituted. What ends? Life, lib- 
erty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does the pursuit of happiness 
include? The lawful ac(juisition of one's own labor ; and therefore it is 
before the Constitution, older than Go\ernnient, and Government cannot 
de.stroy it. 

I go further tlian that. This declaration says these are inalienable 
rights. What is meant by inalienable right • That which a man cannot 
alienate from himself: he cannot part from it. In fornung a political as- 
sociation, the government you create has just such power as you can con- 
fer upon that government. Now, if this pursuit of happiness is one of the 
inalienable riglits, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to private 
property, an<l it cannot be alieiuited, then the government iiever can pos- 
sess it. If government never can possess it, and a man cannot part from 
it, much less can a majority take it from a minority. I go so far as this : 
if I were in Kansas and had a horse, or a slave, or a saw-log, or a l;irin, or 
a Yankee clock, and every man in the Territory or State should vote to 
say that clock shall not be your property ; tliat horse shall not be your 
property ; that iarm. or that saw-log, or slave, shall not be your 
property, I hold that their vote of ninety-nine thousand nine hundred 
and ninety-nine against me alone would not and could not divest me 
of my right. In the regulation of future political action in the Terri- 
tory you may say we will not have a slave here ; those that arc here we 



30 

will set free, Lut wc will pay you for tliom. lie who brings them in after 
the law prohibits it, comes in with liis eyes open, and the law, in taking 
the property from him, does not confiscate it — he is forfeiting property by 
his own act. That is the difference. No man can be despoiled of his 
rights by numbers. They may crush him; they may overpower him ; they 
may trample him in the dust; but still the voice of justice will cry aloud to 
Heaven for redress — not for vengeance; for I never want to heai' venge- 
ance invoked in this Chamber. 

In reply to the question put some time since by the Senator from New 
York, I will state that I am informed by a friend here that all the returns 
with regard to the State election were made within eight days. That is a 
matter en 2)at!<^ but I had never turned niy attention to it. My attention 
had been confined to the legal point on which I had the right to act. The 
Senator from New York, therefore, is now answered. They were retni'ued 
Avithin that time. 

There is one point, however, that I have hastily passed over, and that is 
the one which the Senator from Illinois animadverts upon with so much 
peculiar zest — the mode of amendment of the constitution. The Senator 
says that, when the constitution prescribes a certain mode of amendment 
that mode only can be pursued ; and if any other mode is resorted to, it is 
revolutionary. He quotes the article from the declaration of rights, to be 
found 11 the report I made to the Senate at the time the bill was presented, 
and he says that is a revolutionary right. He says it is like the Declara- 
tion of Independence. Here it is : 

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are found- 
ed on their authority, and instituted for their benefit ; and therefore they have at all 
times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish tlieir form of 
government in such manner as they may think proper." 

This, says the Senator from Illinois, is a right of revolution by war — 
grim-visaged war — a revolution by the sword. I answei-, that such is not 
the intei'pretation ; and I intend to prove, to my own satisfaction at least, 
the postion I take on that subject. This provision is but copied, in the 
language of President Buchanan, from various other State constitutions. 
Nearly all the States of the Union have a similar declaration in their bill 
of rights. When, therefore, it was put into the declai'ation of i-ights in 
Kansas, it Avas put in there with its known construction and ordinary exe- 
cution and application. AVhat is that known construction, ordinary execu- 
tion, and application in the several States? I will tell you. Indiana, with 
a similar provision, and also a provision in the constitution which said that 
no change should be made in it for twelve years, called a convention and 
amended it before that time, not in the method pointed out in the constitu- 
tion. It has been thus construed in Indiana ; it has been thus construe<l 
in Delaware ; it has thus been construed in Pennsylvania, in New York, 
and in various other States. Now, with this known construction, with this 
known application, it Avas incorporated into the bill of rights in. the State 
of Kansas; and what truer, more unanswerable rule is there than this: 
that Avhen a law has been received with a certaifi known approved con- 
struction uniformly, if another community adopt the same law, they are 
held to adopt the same construction ? Hence, 1 say, they adopted it with 
that known application. 



31 

But T liave two other reasons to present to the Senator. ]Ic says it is 
a rcvohitioiiary riglit. I do not care what you call it : 
"That wliich we call a rose 
By any other name would smell as sweet." 

Call it revolution, if you please. It is a civil means in confoiinity with the 
declaration of the Constiution by which the people niay nfonii, alter, 
amend, or abolish their constitution. I care nothing about the name, lie 
says it is a revolution by the sword. I say it is not tliat, but a legal change 
through the agency of the ballot-box. Fir.st, this provision is found in all 
our State constitutions. They are all republican, because they could not 
be in the Union without being republican. Second, the Constitution says 
that the Federal (Jovernment shall protect each State from domestic vio- 
lence. It is bound to do it. Suppose the Senator from Illinois should un- 
dertake to put his construction into effect, and say it is a right to draw the 
sword to revolutionize the Government ; it would be domestic violence, and 
the Federal Government would have to crush it on the instant. Therefore 
it proves that it cannot be understood as implying a resort to the sword 
to revolutionize a State government. That construction, therefore, is ex- 
cluded. 

Finally, when a constitution makes two provisions on the same subject, 
it is the duty of both the judge and the statesman to give a con.struction 
to both clauses that will give force and effect to eacli if it be possible; and 
if not, if they be so repugnant that they cannot stand together, one or the 
other must give way. Now, a reasonable construction can be given to 
both of these clauses which will enable both to stand and have vitality, 
force, and effect. I explained this before, but I passed over it so hastily 
that perhaps I sliall be excused for repeating the same idea again. The 
constitution says, after the year 18G4, the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, 
may proceed to amend the constitution. The constitution also says that 
the people at all times have the right to amend their constitution. How 
shall you construe the two clauses so as to allow tlie people at all times to 
have the power to amend it? I answer, if the government takes the initia- 
tive, if the government of its own volition — I mean the governing power, 
the Legislature — undertakes to amend the constitution, they can only do it 
in the way pointed out in the constitution, because their power is derived 
from the constitution ; and if a certain method be specified and pointed out 
for their action, it prohibits the government, the governing officers, the 
Governor, and Legislature, or otherwise, ju.st according as the amending 
power may be vested for tlie time being, from pursuing any other method. 
Xow, the governing power is limited to the mode pointed out. The peo- 
]>le are not limited, and cannot be limited. How can you get them together? 
1 answer, just as they always do get together. TJiey instruct their 
Legislature to provide a rule of uniform action to enable them legallv to 
come together. It may be called revolution if you choose, but when "the 
people come together en masse, or by representatives under the sanction of 
law, they are in the exercise of their original rights untrammelled by con- 
stitutions, unrestraine<l by any provisions in their old constitution. " They 
can do just as they please, consistent with private rights. This is the con- 
struction that is to be placed upon the two provisions. 

If you -say otherwise, that will bring you in conflict with the honorable 
Senator from Michigan. It amounts to just this : if they may be tied up 
and prohibited from amending their constitution until the year 18G4, they 



32 

can bo until 1865, 1866, 1870, and seventy times seventy. The principle 
is the same; and yet the Senator from Michigan says the people will never 
submit to the doctrine that they shall not govern themselves. If they will 
not, they must retain the power of amending their constitutions in a legal, 
(H'derly method. Otherwise, a preceding generation governs them. Other 
wise, the people may be restrained from changing their constitution for as 
long as they live, which is a doctrine repugnant to the genius of our insti- 
tutions. There is no question about this fact that this is the received and 
known construction, that it has been followed out time and time again. 

I believe, with others, that constitutions ought not to be changed too fre- 
quently ; that they ought not to be tw^isted and turned to suit the emer- 
gency of any particular occasion ; that they ought to have stability and 
uniformity, and be continued long enough to command veneration. If our 
Federal Constitution had been changed every year, there Avould be but 
little veneration for it. If our State constitutions were changed every few 
years, there would be but little respect for them. I desire, therefore, to 
see stabilitj", uniformity, and every constitution kept in existence long- 
enough to command the entire respect of the people. If they see the 
blunders and errors, they can suggest a remedy without endangering its 
other better parts. They can resort to legal means, call a convention, and 
mould and make a new constitution. What I mean by legal means is, to 
devise a rule which shall make the action uniform, equal, and just ; just as 
the convention law in Kansas was ; just as the convention laws in all the 
States of this Union are and have been. It is simply to prescribe a rule 
by the existing government, at the instance of the people by which they 
may come together, in person or by representatives, and exercise an origi- 
nal power in the reformation of their government. 

I shall now leave the subject. I have shown that this is a legal consti- 
tution, fairly adopted ; that the allegations of fraud made against it are 
unsupported ; and that there is no well-sustained allegation of fraud against 
any single proceeding affecting the validity of this constitution. I have 
also endeavored to show that it is a very important question, vital to the 
interests of the whole Union, vital to the Democratic party, vital to the 
South. I would not appeal to "Americans" to build up the Democratic 
party, but I would appeal to them not to assist in building up the only 
party dangerous to the integrity of the institutions of our country. I 
would appeal to them, if they cannot be of us, at least help us to break 
down {he common enemy of us both. 



U '10 



